Court No 11 Live Streaming on DT.18.06.2026 at 02:15 PM

[00:00:04]Notices numberiph.

[00:00:29]Propriet Company is closed.

[00:00:59]Yes, the office as the office was found or the company is closed.

[00:01:05]companies you say you just have a search you will get a report from and then you can file from the supplementary list under heading for final disorder. Item one WPC29.

[00:01:56]I have seen all the rejection orders but they are not the same.

[00:01:59]>> No they are not the same. Therefore in my competitive chart which I have given the soft copy I will mention the rejection. That's for data companies.

[00:02:06]Plus if there are different rejection or two rejection orders are common and other two rejection >> this one rejection order it says that there is no provision for uh treatment of dental a.

[00:02:18]>> Yes. In that we have given a reply that only because the agreement itself shows that with the hospital we have arrangement for dental treatment there was no claim for dental treatment for that period.

[00:02:29]>> So I will just search in the records >> in the notes we have given >> different different improved orders different cases or different improve orders and there are different reasons.

[00:02:40]>> Yes.

[00:02:43]So yesterday you said that all is done everything is same in one of the companies I find you see in one of the impeding order I find that there was no no previous exemption ever. So you said your primary argument was that exemption was being granted and then it was discont I am appearing all those matters there were exemptions for one period or the other in one case >> every case has a different >> different yes >> every case has different in some of the cases there is only recovery proceeding which is under challenge >> yes one first >> only the recover Yes, because we have said pending.

[00:03:31]>> They are not rejected.

[00:03:34]Where is number one?

[00:04:00]235.

[00:04:03]Yes, it is your case. Is there >> Let us see what is the relief you are seeking.

[00:04:22]In this case there is an order of rejection which is rejection in this.

[00:04:28]If my friend is appearing there's a difference >> 695 because these are that can be disposed of earlier because there's no impusion that today they can't can't be exemption it has to be rejected that's what my point is and all these I think that point is common in everything six This is sort of questioning of the demand of your file application for each year.

[00:05:21]>> Oh, the only extra one is for November 25. Give me the date. The period involved is October 2000 October 20. No, period is October 2011 to December 2014.

[00:05:43]>> Okay.

[00:05:44]>> And then January 2016, May 2016. That is the period in the month. January 2016, May 2016.

[00:05:57]So in October for October 11 where is your application?

[00:06:02]>> Yes that application is the chart which Mr. In that chart this chart, yes, we have given a composite so far as both this is a concern 6957 >> 6957.

[00:06:47]It's not >> I just page 36 to 39.

[00:07:00]Actually first two pages are the cases of Mr. >> I would like to see it from the record.

[00:07:12]>> Huh? I I'll just give over and then you see the dates here. Okay. 6957. The first is date of application is 251 2011 year exemption 2011 pending. Then again is 221 2011 date of application year seeking exemption is 2012. 29th 2012 your senior application is 2013 in 2018 2014 your senior application 2014 and I have been granted exemption in one year that is 16 these all are pending >> 2016 you have been granted >> granted exemption granted 2016 >> have been granted exception >> and these all petitions are >> but when you when you say that they have not processed your application on time and now there cannot be any inspections no retrospective exemption kind of correct >> so you have to also show that you have made application as per the >> yes most and few I will succeed for few years and I will not succeed for >> I think 2014 you are filing 2011 is also it appears to be related >> yes so so far as 2012 is concerned Is it for 3 months?

[00:08:30]>> There's only one way out when I argue this. Finally come to section 87.

[00:08:36]>> Yes.

[00:08:42]>> Section 87.

[00:08:55]Section 87 is the appropriate government by notification in the official government subject to such conditions as you specified in exempt any factory or establishment or a class of factories or establishment in any specified area for the operation of this act for a period not exceeding one year and may from time to time by notification renew any such exemption for periods not money.

[00:09:22]Provided such exemptions granted only if the employees in such factories are established otherwise in receipt of benefit substantially similar to the benefit provided on this provided further the application for renewal shall be made. Now kind this is only an application of renewal shall be made 3 months before the date of expiry uh of the exemption period and a decision on the same shall be taken from the appropriate government within two months of receip application. Now section 88 is a different thing. Section 90 m is another thing. Section 91 may be important. It is again which says exemption from all the provisions of the act. But 91A any notification granting exemption under section 87 may be issued so as to take prospectively on such data.

[00:10:12]So today brothers whatever period I had applied number one that three months bar is for renewal having not granted me a reading together even clearly to be fair to what's it I have to make an application before it if I've seen 2011 I can't make an application in 201 I have to make it in 2012 because they also need some time to reasonable time to process it and once they decide to grant it will have to be prospective. So all these years where the application is 3 months period is for only for renewal but to be reasonable that can be forwarded in for a fresh application as well that your lordship's ded where it can be granted where it cannot be granted is a matter of decision now in view of this but to keep it pending for all these things and having regard to the fact that I have there is no dispute that I have given services or benefits to the employee that in way of jing and your ships can for equity sake not payment of those or come up with some moderated payment >> what do you say to this >> my first is each year's application is separate cause of action there cannot be clubbing of cause of actions in application >> you see those >> so this is my first technical objection space has been admitted under admission.

[00:11:46]>> It's not a question of this because here there is no rejection. There's one demand. You have raised one demand. I can't find four.

[00:11:52]>> Now they are not technical. Please let them address.

[00:11:56]>> So my first is I have raised a demand because of nonpayment of the contribution.

[00:12:01]>> You have also raised a consolidated demand.

[00:12:03]>> I can raise a consolidated demand for the reason exemption has to be decided year- wise. If exemption is >> no no separate demand. No separate demand every year also not >> but exemption for each year exemption as I've already pointed out each year exemption is a separate cause of action is a separate cause of action each exemption has to decide on its own test >> you see each year you have not processed it >> but every year they will file a separate treatment >> this is why why I'm saying so because it would mean >> anyway this objection is rejected all you have to say on >> married the aspect is spending under law No employer can say that exemption application is pending and deny contribution payment >> deny >> payment of contribution to the ESI. It is as good as saying that my application is pending. I won't pay the statuto duty which is encompassed under the act.

[00:12:58]>> No, I don't get it. You see you say that respective exemption cannot be hand.

[00:13:04]>> Definitely lo >> the application is pending.

[00:13:07]>> Application is pending.

[00:13:08]>> You do not process it. It is not processed.

[00:13:10]>> Not processed.

[00:13:11]>> Not processed.

[00:13:11]>> And ultimately the period is over.

[00:13:13]>> It is over. Then who is to be blamed?

[00:13:16]>> You are to be blamed.

[00:13:17]>> It is not.

[00:13:17]>> You have rejected it.

[00:13:18]>> It is not us. It is both the parties for the reason 2011 matter. They are raging in the year 2016 >> because they have raised the demand >> because I I've got a period of 5 years.

[00:13:30]In five years I can raise the demand.

[00:13:32]Now contribution and exemption are two different. Contribution is a statute duty casted upon the employers to do this. Exemption is a form of exception.

[00:13:42]So exception has to be understood in the same manner as a exemption which is required to be understood for the reason that they have to be very particular to get it. If they are not the contribution has to be there because it's as good as saying that I filed a P and uh I should not be made uh I should not be subject to payment of the entire amount. So this is not the case.

[00:14:07]Contribution is there. Contribution is the mandate of the statute. Exemption is an exception to that. So he has to see there's no exemption order which has been granted.

[00:14:21]For whatever reasons he was not diligent in pursuing the application, the application could not be processed because ESI and state government are two different entities. Contribution have been demanded by the state government by the ESI. Exemption is to be decided by the state government a separate adjudicator authority.

[00:14:38]>> So they have filed their application for >> before the state government before the state government.

[00:14:45]If they are not possessing it for reasons best known to them or the concerned authority, the statuto mandate of payment of contribution cannot be given aside because this is a beneficial piece of legislation >> and this amendment has come up to >> India 2010 >> in the year 2010. So these periods are covered except for in one case it will not cover that is of the case of Tatast utilities and infrastructure.

[00:15:14]Just a moment. Let me capture this. Uh WPC number 6957 of 2016.

[00:15:26]The learned council for health petitioner has submitted that the respondent ESL has raised demand for the period from October 2011 to December 2014 and January 2016 to May 2016.

[00:15:51]But the application for exemption for the year 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 remained pending from 251 2011, comma 22 11 2011, comma 29 10 2012 and 28 11 2014 respectively.

[00:16:21]your period January 256 you have said that exemption for the period 2016 was granted >> yes 2016 I have >> but that demand is also there >> yes they have made a demand from January to me I'll just show the 2016 Sorry 97.

[00:17:33]This makes sense.

[00:20:25]in my joint. I'm sorry.

[00:20:30]If you're not just the line of my why I just what they have done I have actually granted exemption from 16 2016 17 that's the period of exemption The council has submitted that exemption was granted if the hearing notice received favorable order. What is the period is not there?

[00:21:19]>> It's not here >> on the left side >> 16.

[00:21:36]Just keep that blank for a The council has submitted that since the applications for exemption was pending and the same was not processed.

[00:22:10]The demand is itself bad.

[00:22:14]>> That is the reason for the include 77.

[00:22:18]The reason for this is 918 the include order in 77 and 45.

[00:22:28]Yes. And you come to this third last paragraph whereas Satraan appeared before the 310.

[00:22:35]However, he did not produce of ESI paper by the company for the period mentioned in 157 2016. Instead, he again submitted so and so 310 reiterating the same facts as already submitted before the understand.

[00:22:52]It was again intimated to Rajan that there is no provision in SI act under 1948 under which the order related to brand or otherwise of exemption of a unit can can review by the by the state government who had issued the same. It was again intimated to him that as per section 91A of ESI act no order relating to grant of exemption can be issued retrospectively and therefore the petition of exemption filed by the company for the calendar year 2011 2014 in respect of which no orders have been issued by the state government have become inuous at this stage she so and so did not show ination to records for assessment of due of contribution payable by the company for the period mentioned in office so accordingly understand is having no other option but to proceed with the case on the council has referred to the order 10 at page 77 and has submitted that as per the in order while raising the demand it has been intimated to the representative of the petitioner who was appearing for the hearing that the that as per section 91 Capital A of the ASI act 1948. No order relating to grant of exemption can be issued retrospectively and therefore the petition of the exemption filed by the company for the calendar year 2011 to 14 in respect of which no orders were passed by the state government had become inactives.

[00:24:31]There is a sufficient report can give the records of WP3,900 serial number 10 there in the region we have an extra notification of exemption >> the notification of exemption granted >> for the previous 1 2016 to 31 2016 >> for the period 1 2016 to 311 2016 has been NX in WPC number >> uh 3900 >> WPC number 390 >> of 2021 >> of 2021 at page >> at page 56 of the rejoiner >> at page 56 of the rejoinder >> rejoiner which was interestingly shows that you know exemption was granted to me for that period on 967 ing the factor.

[00:25:30]>> Uh and he submits that the exemption was granted by order dated 96 >> notification >> by notification dated 96 2017 >> 2017 >> for the period 1 2016 to >> 312 2016 >> 312 they have not challenged this they have accepted this because this according to me is also In such circumstances, he submits that mentioning that the case that that the exemption applications have become infectuous is contrary to their own conduct as the exemption for the period 2016 was granted by them by the state government in the year 2017.

[00:26:33]is not for the year 2016.

[00:26:35]>> I will show I will show this is only for from 2011.

[00:26:39]>> No, we had a statement supplementary December December 2016 that is 8th December 2016.

[00:26:53]But so far as the next 10 is concerned, it is for a particular period 2011 to May 2014 to 2014 that's not under the complete set of demand notice actually incomplete set five. for the complete sector by supplement that is on my supplement this page. You missed out one page.

[00:27:33]You missed out the page.

[00:27:35]>> Second page was missed out.

[00:27:39]>> The notification granting exemption has been brought on record at Nex Ara to the counter affidavit dated 79 2018 at page number 13. Sorry, >> which is for the period 1 2016 to 312 2016 while notification dated 967 is at page five the learning council. Submit that the complete set of INQ order dated 13 since 2016 has been placed on record through supplementary academic whose second page reveals that the demand was for the period from October 2011 to 12 2014 and then from January 2016 to May 2016.

[00:28:57]October of the year >> 5 years. I want a five years limitation.

[00:29:06]>> Commencing October 201 the period of default has been shown from June 2011 to May 2016.

[00:29:22]Now another thing why is asking why is January 16 to May 16 included because this demand has come on 13 2016 that is before the exemption was granted granted this so on 13 2016 there was no exemption notification that's the reason >> so according to you this amount for the period January May >> the council sgest that in view of the exemption granted for the period January 2016 to December 2016 the demand relating to this period amounting to rupees 5 04 075 anyways does not is not sustainable enough correct >> yes it's 504 5047 the only further submission in response to Mr. Aran's argument is one.

[00:30:27]>> No, there is one more thing I >> Yes, it's show your application seeking exemption.

[00:30:34]>> Yes. That that you just haven't looked at.

[00:30:37]>> Yes, ma'am. An extra one that >> your cases that whatever is there in Tata main hospital is being >> Oh, yes. Yes. That is your specific case.

[00:30:46]>> Specific, >> right? And then you have also referred to your rules and regulations.

[00:30:53]Whatever is applicable.

[00:30:54]>> Yes. Whatever is applicable I have also brought on record a sub union. Union has filed a letter which I brought that we are also satisfied with the >> their satisfaction is irrelevant.

[00:31:07]>> No, they are also stakeholder.

[00:31:08]>> Maybe they are stakeholders >> just supporting that the workers.

[00:31:12]>> That's right. You see you have these uh service rules and conditions that you have the benefits >> maybe that the inspection cannot be done now >> correct >> but whatever benefits are they there they are on record >> that that is evident from the fact that in 2016 you consider same benefit and granted me exemption how these standards therefore you can't same benefits the only exercise they can undertake today is that whether >> now we have to also see that so far as Tata Steel's case is concerned >> yes >> that is directly related to TM MH.

[00:31:42]>> Yes.

[00:31:43]>> Was Tata Steel granted any such benefit with respect to TMH for this period?

[00:31:48]>> Uh 2016. Yes. I >> if if that be so >> if that be so then there can be no reason for any separate inspection for these people.

[00:32:01]>> But the benefits they will have to see.

[00:32:02]Tatast steel and rata pigments gain the same other benefits are there.

[00:32:06]>> Yes. So far as other benefits are concerned, I do not know whether it is safe or not >> because we have a batch of cases. If Tata main hospital facilities >> and whatever is being provided through Tata main hospital if it is applicable for them >> is applicable for us >> and if it is available for Tata's team for a particular 2011 maybe >> then can it be said that the same facility being provided to a brother or sister concerned they are deprived of >> not it can't >> I do not know because Because Chhatta main hospital they say that they are also entitled to other facilities. Are they also entitled at least that? So no fresh inspection would be required.

[00:32:54]>> No fresh inspection would be required >> because hospital is the same >> and additionally which is not on record but clear cut. I have also been granted exemption for the current year till 2028.

[00:33:04]So they can always see what is the benefit I g exemption for today and what was there earlier.

[00:33:10]>> What was there earlier? If this >> so if the if these particular terms and conditions whatever you have now if it was there even at that point of time terms and conditions cannot be a matter of dispute >> it cannot it is all documented sorry all benefit service rules are documented they can see and your option is >> I forgot that if TMH is good for Tata steal then TH if same benefit is good for Tata >> so they cannot say that the at least it they cannot say that it cannot be examined. Oh yes, of course it is all papers based. It can be done.

[00:33:44]>> They say that it cannot be given retrospective that we will see but it you cannot say that it cannot be examined >> but as 100% they may fix a date will appear and we will show them that how 2011 and 2026 for a moment are similar of 2016 and 2015 was similar because your state government has said that 2016 exemption is granted. If I'm able to show a parallel for 2015 14 then your >> identical terms and condition >> identical terms and conditions then your can take a view at a subsequent date that whether or not >> and what was your alignment with Tatast because >> because what was your arrangement it is there is also a catch >> you have an arrangement with TM right >> okay you can go to TM and have your uh whatever analysis But do you also have a treatment with tie up? Do you have the same facility of tie up etc that may not be there?

[00:34:45]>> No, that taps also must be >> we do not know. We do not know it is not there.

[00:34:50]>> Yes, I cannot even show but I can show but I can they can very well >> they are not going to see >> they can show whatever >> they can see whatever they want to show.

[00:34:58]100% >> if the employees are identically placed or they are not identically placed.

[00:35:03]>> Say in taxation also there is no concept of rest. But still if a particular view is taken by a particular period that has a very serious value >> there's no concept of similarly there may not be any concept of restart as they were doing but the point is that if a view is taken with a particular facility for a particular period for a particular uh establishment they cannot have it their own days in every every year and say there's no rest >> officer change in officer will not decide the change universal product that's my concern. So this is it so far as >> yes I am happy to go back to them show to them and then be satisfied that what they satisfied >> what is in sequel to this you place a case of cleage >> uh >> tatast >> one of the reasons that given is that there is no no facility for treatment of one of the reasons I saw that.

[00:36:13]>> Where is the Tata steel case?

[00:36:15]>> Tata steel is 2536.

[00:36:18]>> So this covers your just a moment.

[00:36:20]Exactly.

[00:36:24]The learner council for the petitioner has also submitted that as per the application seeking exemption, the petitioner is the employees under the petitioner are entitled to all the benefits of hospital and full medical arrangement as is available in Tata main hospital. as per the arrangement between the petitioner and Tataston limited.

[00:36:57]He has further submitted that the terms and conditions of employment with respect to various facilities have also been was also placed on record before the authority in a popular form.

[00:37:21]Further, it is not clear from the records as to whether the petitioner whether the employees of the petitioner have the same benefit of tie-ups. You have tie-ups now.

[00:37:33]>> This is tie-ups with other >> hospitals as is as may be applicable for employees of Tatast Limited. That arrangement between the petitioner and Tatast Limited can certainly be examined by that.

[00:37:49]Right.

[00:37:51]So far as I refer to your question, so far as the case of Tatast Limited is concerned, the same is also uh involved in this B of cases.

[00:38:06]They who avail the facility from Tata main hospital. The learner council summit that if the facilities in Tata main hospital for a particular period for one of the petitioners in this batch of cases is sufficient then there can be no reason that the same facility being extended to the petitioner of the present case be denied to go. The learner council for the opposite fund >> respondent ESIC >> respondent ESIC has submitted that the application for grant of exemption is filed before the commissioner and secretary department of labor and employment state of grantee and the organization ESIC is entitled to receive the amount unless exemption is granted.

[00:39:04]Exemption is not a matter of right. It is an exception. And in absence of an order of exemption, there can be no relaxation in favor of the petitioner.

[00:39:17]>> And one moment, >> mere pendency of mere filing of an application seeking exemption is not sufficient. The exemption is required to be processed and granted and for that ESIC is not responsible.

[00:39:34]The petitioners the petitioner has clubed different years right from 2011 onwards but has not taken any steps with with respect to one or the other year for process of their exemption application.

[00:40:00]Uh this ESIC comes under the commissioner and secretary department of labor and this is an independent entity >> maybe independent entity does it come >> it does not practically come down because also being sent to you >> it is it is also marked because we have to appear we have to contest is the exemption application.

[00:40:25]>> So you are also aware that exemption definitely yes we >> during the course of hearing it transpired that the copy of exemption application was also forwarded to the regional director ESIC as well as inspector/manager ESIC with intimation to them so that they may also appear before the authority in the matter of hearing on the point of exemption.

[00:40:53]So far as prayer number one is concerned uh my understanding of the alternative remedy he has got a three-fold twofold remedy 45A under the ASI act challenging the same there after section >> 45 A >> and after section 75 of the ASI act he can go before the labor board exemption they cannot be joined of cause of actions because exemption is a separate contribution demand This submit >> the council submits that the petitioner has two alternative remedies which he has not availed. One is an appeal under section 45 AAA >> against the demand raised and so far as section 75 of ESI >> act >> act is concerned >> for the it will go before the ESI code which is the labor code >> the 75 >> 75 1 G >> 75 1 >> G within bracket G is concerned.

[00:42:05]If any dispute arises, the person who is the the person who is or was the principal employer in respect of an employee may approach the labor court for aducation of Employ State just one document from this petition.

[00:42:41]>> Yes.

[00:42:42]>> And it's your post series is also my reply from page number 50 onwards.

[00:42:58]50 of the counter >> application definitely.

[00:43:04]>> Yes.

[00:43:05]>> So these are the replies submitted by the SI corporation before the department of labor.

[00:43:10]>> Okay.

[00:43:12]>> And from the competitive chart law kindly permit me 2 3 4 5 6 and Five is >> just the learning council for the respondents has also referred to an extra four cities from page 50 onwards that these are the uh objections raised by ASI C before the principal secretary department of labor training and employment raising objection with respect to the claim >> exemption application >> claim of uh with respect to exemption application filed by the petitioner.

[00:43:49]And just one additional fifth what should we turn this uh next page >> paragraph five there's an additional thing which was incorporated over here >> uh he has specifically referred to paragraph five >> 2 3 4 and five is an additional thing which we five is in case of a medical college having are formed the ws of the insurance person are eligible for admission under the sic management This is on merits right >> on meds and just to support his case just to support his case that is pending it can be decided by the in my compilation lo at page number 59 my compilation in that case also the matter was sent par 30 was sent to be determined by the state This value was sent for determination par 13 >> page number 59 >> page 74 >> page 74 number >> 330 at page 74 >> it is sealed that petition was admitted no in was granted petitioner also did not pursue the application for exemption on the other hand government declined to consider the application view of the pendance of this petition not clear as to whether the employer and employers contribution deported in the east side.

[00:45:16]If it is deported, it is well and good.

[00:45:18]However, if it has not been done, it creates a situation of interest of the population being generalized which will ultimately affect the large number of beneficial of the corporation naturally including those who are governed by the lead industry. This court is therefore of the view that the government will consider the for exemption. The same shall be decided as within 3 months from the date of receipt of it. If government files as a petitioner who applicant before the government is not bing the application to state that the state government would refute the application.

[00:45:40]So we also applicable director for deciding the application.

[00:45:45]>> So your applications are their applications are to be decided.

[00:45:49]>> So I'm just supporting this that's what I said would that one submission also be recorded that the benefit of whatever benefits we were providing good bad ugly were given to the employees and during the period when The learning council for the respondent has also referred to the judgment passed by MH >> Maharashtra benchmar Agar versus region of India versus yes par number 30 and submitted that in the same case also the application for exemption was pending and the matter was remitted to the authority for deciding the same as the that's it.

[00:47:23]We had in one more case we had the matter of check >> what the learned constants for five minutes.

[00:47:41]Can I just >> should I should I disclose it off?

[00:47:44]>> Yes. Protect me till the matter is decided by that.

[00:47:49]>> Yes, we'll appear on that particular date with all the documents. an upper limit of time 3 months whatever >> I have after joining the learning council for the partners It is not in dispute that the application seeking exemption for the period 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2015 remain pending before that quity. Before the secretary before the commissioner and secretary department of labor and employment started the branch for the from 25 March 2011, 2211 2011, 29 2011 and 2811 2014.

[00:49:25]And admittedly exemption has been granted for the period 2016 in the year 2017 for the period from January 2016 to December 2016.

[00:49:51]In the meantime, the impute order has been passed by the first state insurance corporation officials.

[00:50:12]by the ESIC dated 13 2016 raising such raising the demand for the period October 2011 to December 2014 and January 2016 to May 2016.

[00:50:32]By observing that the cases which have been the the matters seeking exemption for the period 2011 to 2015 2011 to 2014 had I mean the records of the case reveal that notices were also issued took the regional office of Bhart Employees Insurance Corporation as contained in an extra four series.

[00:51:29]I'm sorry. Employees state insurance.

[00:51:35]>> It is mentioned in the letter. Regional office jar. Regional office is separate.

[00:51:39]>> Regional office jar of of employee state insurance corporation with respect to some of the periods and the copies seeking exemption.

[00:52:02]The copies of the exemption application was also forwarded to the employees a state insurance corporation now.

[00:52:13]It is further not in dispute that these applications were filed.

[00:52:31]This court is on the considered view that the applications having been filed before the commissioner and secretary department of labor and employment state of Jakan grantee who is a competent authority to consider the application.

[00:52:52]The employee state insurance corporation by raising a demand could not have stated that the applications have become incorporous.

[00:53:04]Once an application seeking exemption is filed, the matter is required to be to to be taken to a logical end and it has to be examined and it is for the authority advocacy authority concerned who has to take take a call with regard to the fake of the application.

[00:53:28]It will certainly be open to the authority to Take every aspect of the matter including the provisions of law and examine as to whether the parties have acted as per.

[00:53:48]But the matter having to be pending before the advocating authority, the ESIC could not have said that the matters have become in view of the appropriate facts and circumstances.

[00:54:09]This quote is of the considered view that the impute demand dated 13 10 2016 for the period October 2011 to 12 2014 and January 2016 to 5 16.

[00:54:44]>> Yes. Would not have been enforced through the impute order.

[00:55:00]It would be suffice if the posted authority in the commission and secretary department of labor and employment state of charting.

[00:55:10]>> Now respond number two.

[00:55:11]>> Now respond number two is directed to decide the pending applications.

[00:55:23]If not decided. If not decided. If not decided because of date we are not sure.

[00:55:28]>> What do you mean not decided? state is here and >> in such circumstances the petitioner and who will appear >> the officials of the ESIC because we don't know >> and the concerned officer of the ESIC are directed to appear before the respondent number two on 8th of July 8th of July, 2026 at 11:00 a.m.

[00:56:06]with the relevant records and the state authority shall decide the applications seeking exemption in accordance with law taking into consideration the provisions of particularly taking into consideration the provision of ASIC act and pass a speeding within a period of 6 weeks thereafter and communicate the order to the parties through speed post and also through email which may be email ID which may be furnished by the parties to the the posted authority.

[00:56:58]It will in order to ensure that there is no gap It the authority may call upon the parties to file their written submissions.

[00:57:10]You file your submissions also. It is kept in a still.

[00:57:13]>> Yes. Uh the impute demand dated 13 10 2020 2016 shall remain shall be kept in aense till the final decision and subject to the result of the application.

[00:57:36]Timeline is going to be a huge problem.

[00:57:40]Anyways, this goes only one case or TM data main data main hospital data Limited. Come >> 2668.

[00:58:36]seeking a exemption for year 2022 2668 >> they were granted exemption prior to that. Yes sir. In 1982 to 2000 >> 2000.

[00:58:52]>> Where is that?

[00:59:07]the date of application 2668 granted exemption for 2015 and 16 I've just given a chart symbol number I think I have the same >> simultaneous >> the same thing.

[00:59:29]>> 2668 26. Yes.

[00:59:34]>> Yes. What is this? 266.

[00:59:37]Can I see the second third column that is date of exemption? Second exemption that is 2022.

[00:59:44]Next column is date of rejection of the order that is pass 522. And the next last column is exemption granted.

[00:59:53]>> Okay. So in that 1982 to 2000 I mentioned so I've given the details 1 9 2014 to 78 2015 then 8 2015 to 78 2016 2011 11 to 14ic 11 to 14 as this chart.

[01:00:37]>> Not there.

[01:00:42]As for this chart to 14 is not there.

[01:00:48]>> 14 to 15 is there. 15 to 16. 16 to 17.

[01:00:51]11 to 14 is not there. What happened to 11 to 14?

[01:01:32]What happened to 114?

[01:02:52]It has been detected 15 2010 to 1 2013. It has been detected by order dated 10 2013.

[01:03:23]There is another petition 703 of 2013.

[01:03:28]703 status 703 or 13 offical I'm sorry.

[01:04:02]>> You see they related to TML one small TH only provides for hospital inhouse treatments.

[01:04:11]>> Yes. The benefits which we provide and license apart from dental are with regard to service condition the benefits hospital treatment except for that dental treatment there's no other comparison the hospital treatments are concerned only dental treatment this is the only addition >> where is this 703 of 2013.

[01:04:46]>> 703.

[01:04:53]There's this day that it is fixed on 7th July before the bench.

[01:05:22]Yes.

[01:05:36]03 they have challenged the virus 91.

[01:05:39]>> Okay.

[01:05:42]>> Amendment for challenge.

[01:05:46]>> Yes. What do you have to say to this?

[01:05:58]Since we are linked directly linked to this case you argue your kiss.

[01:06:16]>> Which one is your kiss?

[01:06:29]You do not know anything about the fight. You should have said that you do not know anything about it.

[01:06:39]There are many other councils who are waiting to do their respective cases.

[01:06:46]What are the chart comparative chart of more or less it is it rest upon the case of Tata Motors?

[01:07:15]Madam order.

[01:07:17]>> Yes. Show me the order.

[01:07:23]It's 251 131 after reading that I will give some 131 is short recital 131.

[01:07:47]put it here.

[01:07:50]chart. Where is the order?

[01:07:56]>> 25 plus company.

[01:08:31]Just hold on. This time is an important issue.

[01:08:36]So you don't have any time. I'm coming to that. Whatever the medical facility is given to the employee, principal employee tata motor, they are working in the hospital itself. They are working in the hospital itself. They supply the food to the patient and other staffs and and all the all the medical facility which is given to the employee of Tata Motors that is provided. So what kind of arrangement do you have with Tata Motors?

[01:09:04]>> With Tata Motors, >> you are a contractor.

[01:09:06]>> Yes.

[01:09:07]>> And suppose the contract is over then what will happen? There is a trip agreement and since 77 they are working and now all the employees at of that period they have retired in the year 2024 and still that can exist from 77 maybe 77 years maybe 100 years but the point is that there is a renewal of contract from time to time >> to right. Suppose the contractor changes what will happen to those?

[01:09:33]>> Till now it has not been changed. They have it might not have chang now that uh that issue has that issue has been over because we are depositing the ESI the amount of ESI under that ownership.

[01:09:47]>> So you're depositing it?

[01:09:49]>> Since when?

[01:09:51]>> Since when are you depositing?

[01:09:53]>> Everybody Tata Motors, Tata Steel, everybody. All of them have started now.

[01:10:00]So, so they have retired and so that issue doesn't still it is.

[01:10:07]>> Since when have you uh just started depositing them?

[01:10:12]>> Depositing?

[01:10:15]>> Since when are you depositing?

[01:10:26]>> May 2017.

[01:10:28]since May 2017.

[01:10:44]of regarding Tata Mort all the employees they have crossed the uh minimum init of salary now the salary has exceeded so that >> 21,000 >> so I'm the I'm still there existing there. Now second >> do you have the tieups?

[01:11:02]>> Yes, I have the tieups. I'm show the letter of the concern department of Tata Musl which they have addressed. I I will show that that next >> that is an extra 28 file with the supplementary file on 34 2018 or union letter they also file for exemption that was that is I think that will make a concern or not but they have given all the details that what benefit they are getting whether there is a tie up or not the union representative have also given That is page 28 sorry 28 to address then I will read the letter of the union representative also you see the point is that you say that there is tieups show don't show me from the letter this is the impute order no you must have attacked the impute order in your repetition itself this is the reason given in the Supplementary order as a whole every ground is to be attached in the repetition itself.

[01:12:24]Repetition I have stated that whatever facility the Tatam is giving the same facility is given to the this is not the same thing. This is not the same thing.

[01:12:39]Somebody wants to go to uh Vanta Delhi for a treatment. If you have a tie up, you will go.

[01:12:52]I'm just next number.

[01:13:12]Next reason.

[01:13:15]And can So to that I have my reply is that since 77 it is there Still it exists as all the employees concerned they have retired and now the ESI >> no all the employees concerned who have retired >> are they still entitled to all the benefits which is otherwise available in ESIC because they say that the that the benefit is available till death retirement is not material yes and one of the reasons in one of the cases I was seeing that you are that according to Your employees are entitled only till the age of 75.

[01:14:16]>> Yes, in one case it is there.

[01:14:18]>> In one case it is there. I've read all the impug judgments impuned orders.

[01:14:23]>> Perhaps >> they have retired. What does how does that make a difference?

[01:14:27]>> May I just say one additional thing?

[01:14:29]Perhaps the impuned order which is signed over here is 12 11 2015.

[01:14:33]>> Yes. And the anger which my friend is referring is of a subsequent date >> which is not the same 26 page 176 not yes it is not the daughter madam This is not the >> This is not the 63 6330 number.

[01:15:36]Everybody is wasting my time. Your will decide what is the order by name. He has got this.

[01:15:46]Your clerk will decide. It means that you have also not gone through the order at home because you do not know what is order.

[01:16:09]26 instruction.

[01:16:27]These these one and two we have read this one we have read number two number cashless cash you are not entitled to allenefit Cashless. Cash and you have said that they have all retired. Two things are very important because they are under the ESIC they are entitled to benefit for the whole life.

[01:17:13]So retirement is imitated >> and the dependence also >> and the dependence also are entitled.

[01:17:19]So retirement is absolutely immaterial and this cashless when you say that they get cashless facilities.

[01:17:57]Your service benefits are also not same benefit for the whole life.

[01:18:23]You see madam if you are granted exemption then your employees will be disentitled from getting any treatment from ESIC hospital.

[01:18:35]So therefore it has to be matching.

[01:18:58]Cash is there.

[01:19:00]>> Show me from the records madam.

[01:19:01]Instructions.

[01:19:06]These are the five six reasons in the impute order you show me from your record that this is incorrect after retirement is not >> that's the end of the story if it is not There's one statement of cashless add in running page number 50 of the and we have denied this as misleading because no document of proof of cash has been submitted.

[01:19:56]Page number 50.

[01:20:22]Yes, also I'm reading it will not be out of context to mention that Same page.

[01:20:29]Tata Motor Hospital has been granted adventure in the past with only one precondition and benefits of treatment extended to employees at Tata Motor Hospital should be cashless which they all as well as bating to it in totality.

[01:20:42]Employees of Ket also get some exemption granted to Tata Motor.

[01:20:52]>> Which period they have been granted exemption for this particular because they have been >> and we have denied these paragraphs.

[01:21:10]>> Madam, I'm telling you one thing. Don't argue on instructions. Argue on records.

[01:21:16]I'm not used to hearing anything which is beyond the records. If you can substantiate it from the records, it's okay. Otherwise, I will not accept.

[01:21:26]You have not read your file. You are looking for instructions. It is there in their file.

[01:21:31]>> Whose file?

[01:21:32]>> Tata Motorion.

[01:21:34]Tata Motorion. It is stated here.

[01:23:34]You refer to your repetition for a moment. Page 95.

[01:23:52]95 >> the order in which the matter was pending for exemption >> for which period >> for the period 2005 to till now 2014 this is the exemption for the period before that all the matter all the period were pending you see this is a date petition of 2007 >> so in this particular date petition there is no question of pendency of your exemption application of 2014 >> no >> this happened in 2007 >> what is the period involved in this case.

[01:24:21]>> Yes. This is the period 2006.

[01:24:24]>> Okay.

[01:24:25]>> Then the matter was remitted.

[01:24:27]>> Right. You come to the next >> decide the exemption.

[01:24:29]>> You come to the next page.

[01:24:32]>> 1098.

[01:24:36]It was rejected.

[01:24:40]Right. Then you have another reputation WPC213 of 2009.

[01:24:47]It was also rejected. It was >> it was it was demanded.

[01:24:51]>> What happened there after it was pending?

[01:24:54]>> It is still pending.

[01:24:55]>> Still pending for several periods starting from 2005 the matter was pending.

[01:25:01]>> Where from? Where do I get that this is pending?

[01:25:05]>> I can give the >> show me from the petition you have these orders.

[01:25:28]Where is the state?

[01:25:30]You are representing the state.

[01:25:35]>> And what about the other cases?

[01:25:39]>> Yes. What is this? Every year exemption petition is pending and for every year they will file an exemption petition and then come to the court and say that it is pending.

[01:25:51]>> So in some case they have filed after the expiry period also.

[01:25:55]>> So you reject it. Who stops you from rejecting it? You say that they filed it beyond the expiry period. We will uphold your order but you will not say anything. Why should we say you keep the matter pending and create a burden on the court?

[01:26:15]Your officers behaving in this manner are themselves a burden to the court to the system and a liability.

[01:26:23]What is this?

[01:26:25]2006 exemption matter is spending and have you realized the amount recovery has been done.

[01:26:34]They are not bothered about recovery. So therefore in page 23 you are doing service to the employees. What are you doing?

[01:26:50]>> I'm not taking with regard to recovery.

[01:26:52]>> No it is there just see >> therefore in order that till exemption is decided recovery should not be made.

[01:26:58]>> Very good. as much with the sitting case >> and and by that by that time all the beneficiaries would die 53 Three parag either you win or you lose.

[01:27:53]I will not remind any of these methods creating further burden on the system.

[01:28:01]Repeated demand that shortly 14. No. What about NH 16? What happened after NH 16?

[01:28:23]admitted to the department.

[01:28:28]>> Did not pass any order.

[01:28:31]>> No order has been passed. Very good.

[01:28:34]Every year there's a separate year. We don't bother about what happened in previous.

[01:28:39]Madam, you satisfy me with respect to each of the grounds. If you fail on one ground, your petition is bound to satisfy cashless satisfy. What what material have you brought before the authority?

[01:28:53]You have to show that the material was brought before the authority. We don't want any fresh material in this court, right? Show me.

[01:29:02]>> What? Why? Why passover? You have to show it from the records. Madam >> 5 minutes.

[01:29:13]you know every minute how much amount is being spent you have any idea you cannot argue on instructions >> no not instructions >> then why do you need instructions whatever you have put on record you argue otherwise I'll see the records and pass the order I don't need anybody I'm enough You finish off. You finish off the And we are in we are not affilate to the we are indeed So you have to show that the order is special purpose not the scope of >> only to the extent of >> no no every point you have to argue there are numerous reasons given you satisfy me with respect to each of the reason and you say that this material place with me.

[01:31:15]>> What affid what facilities are given and what they are the letter.

[01:31:36]>> That is a fresh material which you have.

[01:31:41]Where is it?

[01:31:44]>> Where is the letter of the union? Just >> it's 117.

[01:32:06]>> What is the date of 31,000?

[01:32:12]3100 >> and what is the period involved in this case?

[01:32:18]What if it has been stated just >> will not bother about I will not take this to decide for a case which is which relates the practice >> and this is of the treasure of t workers union >> no we don't bother about it these things are not placed before their quality and we are not entity >> no they they also made >> it is it is beyond that they also made their application They also made for exemption that we are getting better facility and it is 21.

[01:32:54]>> They are not before us that they are happy with the with the rejection.

[01:33:21]The chart is given with this uh expenditure.

[01:33:29]Page number.

[01:33:33]Page number, please.

[01:34:14]What do you want to show, madam?

[01:34:32]Just a moment to show that each and every benefits this person of Tata Motors has given a chart. The same chart I have also next. The same benefit is given to the employee of the Tata Motors.

[01:34:48]employed because Tata Motor is the principal employee and we are working in the same hospital itself all the benefits are same same and except after retirement that is different otherwise all the benefits are same >> what tieups >> all tie up also everything >> where do I get this >> for that reason only I wanted to just just only for one minute I just show just where will you show from the record just I only statement. We have denied our statement.

[01:35:39]Deny will just take up the entire statement is basically law take up page number 46 of the application >> 46 >> this they have done parise with regard to the number that say that the employ as well as on fact both and labor for the following reasons. First patient is a bonafide contractor running and maintaining canine service at Tata Motor Hospital for the business of patients, attendants and medical staff in the shape of diet. So and so so and so. The patient has been a bonafide conductor ever since the establishment of PMS in so and so as issued by so and so has skipped this three. While rejecting the application principality so and so has failed to appreciate that the act requires for the making of medical serviceable to the employers and members of the families and does not require that employee must have his own hospital and medical infrastructure. The petition for exemption have been on the ground that the employer provides medical facility to employees to Tata Motor Hospital does not have their own medical in itself. The authority has further faith that Tat has been recognized by two SI profession important critical medical institution and the SI profession itself and in the process of TM and also as in the process of this fact this is with regard to ESI corporation having a ESI motor that's a good hospital and it is in the process of arrangement which this ESI corporation wants a tie up with this >> definer made by that does not have tie up with an important hospital a statement has been made no document in support of any tie up there has to be a tie up letter agreement something of that sort >> you read this sentence again September the >> learned authority has further to appreciate that AMS has recognized to ESI corporation as an important credible medical institution and the corporation itself has recognized TMS as a good hospital and is in the process of tie up. So basically we also process tment with the said TMS and has also made argument with about 10 or 12 other big and important hospitals for treatment of insured persons. So this is with regard to mine >> that yes these are not connecting to their >> definitely my >> the observation made by learn with an important hospital is full stop is correct incorrect nothing has been stated >> next second furthermore from the order it appear that learn was more concerned about providing cy of service to the employees of petition rather than looking standard medical benefits compared to them as long as they in service the position appears to also that if the contract is terminated the future of the employee will become insured uh Which of the employees employed will become insured failed to appreciate that his employer has his own hospital and if he desires to close his business may be a factor in a lawful man then the employment will ultimately come to an end and then it is not for the authority to consider whether or not there was a service provider and it would not be a long application.

[01:38:47]The continuity factor stands substantiated by bar gators running TMS campaign for about 50 years and that showed the continuous engagement of the employees in so far this regard to continuity in so far as ground number two is concerned the authority has observed that the employees of the petitioner were not provided cashless medical factory which is only baseline incorrect and imagine the treatment either at Tatan Motors hospital or in another hospital if so required may develop to employees on cashless basis employees are not required to make any payment to the hospital providing treatment and the cost of treatment is to the employees we have denied this up in a counter no supporting document.

[01:39:21]It will not be out of context to mention that the MH has been granted exemption in the past with only one precondition that benefits of treatment extended to employees at Tata Motor should be cast which they as well as Bhat is aimed to in totality. Employees of hearts also get the same standard of medical treatment at Tata Motor Hospital and elsewhere as are made available by the Tata Motor Hospital to the employees.

[01:39:42]Again lot we have denied this as there's no supporting document to substantiate it in so far ground number three is concern the learn authority has failed to appreciate that wherever required the employer considerable long period of leave to the employees on medical ground two cases requiring prolonged treatment absent from workplace off she and so on since law documents in this regard were filed by way of government evidence which have been completely ignored. The authority also fail to appreciate their absentism from work on false medical ground and as is prevalent in practice results in absentation from duty causing bottleneck in producing production and lowering down productivity in production.

[01:40:15]So far as ground number four is concerned the documentary evidence of enhanced fire by have long established practice and the practice of providing any benefit for a long time itself gets hardened into rule of law and does not require separate necessary document dealing the policy. Raw number five is also the poly of material benefit is a statuto requirement and the petitioner could not avoid extending such benefit to any female employees if and when employed and if and when occasion allows as for the present there are no female employees there has been no failure to give such benefit the scheme of the site act is not to completely employ female employees only for the purpose of extending material benefits number six is also based in that the position of act was sent to the place of employment verification the content year 204 and the appeal made from time to so and so and so was made to all the person making with the application so and so but the author did not consider the clear for hearing of the appearance together and picked up the application only respect of year 20145 and has rejected it that the employees through the union have also made applic noticed and never heard in consideration the application for exemption addition of the honorable supreme court so and so was cited by the principle laid down by the lordship of the honorable supreme court for the benefit of the employees are considered by the employees are in will be made a party it was their application they never made a party it was their application it was not my application they should have made a And in view of the specific pros made in so and so while add of principal employer have been fixed to pay contribution from the immediate employer in view of this specific provision the authority should have noticed Tata Motors Hospital for proceeding in presumption which is fa to that the learned authority while considering the application fail to appreciate that the employees who are sought to be covered on the closure of the act are getting benefits on their work spot whereas in case of their sickness or sickness of members of the family they have to go to a long distance about 20 km to hospital in Adapur to get treatment not involving time but also involving considerable expense in the shape of transport and convenience. The resp of the parties before coming to the conclusion as said. So in nut this is the only statement. No supporting documents are given. We we have denied all these statements for want of any supporting documents.

[01:42:17]My reply is that counter filed by the ESIC from paragraphs 28 to 35.

[01:42:49]522 3 to 30 contractor on behalf of respond number 23 >> 28 my lords 28 It starts from pair 28.

[01:43:18]>> Yes, >> 29 would be relevant. This is regard to tie-ups that is statement made in paris C is misleading. Admit the petition does not have a hospital. Further no tie doment is brought to you to substantiate the agreements.

[01:43:31]Thereafter 29 30 29 30 ESI act is a social circulation gets us doing and post employment too with regard to t employ no document misleading no document got to substantiate the government regard to the employees who have been given to be given 32 exempt was consider that the data being are same and similar in all respects there's nothing to that 33 47 G2L I'm misleading no document has been brought on record >> 47 we have given a list of hospitals whom we have got tie up for cash >> 28 to 36 >> definitely 28 to 35 >> what I was trying to say all the benefits given by Tata Motors employee are saying that to employee of Barak and in it is a different case of 2021 in which it is their order in which they have stated only two lines.

[01:45:02]So this facility they are the principal employer I am getting the same benefit in the because I am working in the hospital itself and I'm getting all the chart also when the concern authority They ask me the to give the compensation.

[01:45:37]If you have to show, you have to show your agreement with Tata Motors that yes, this facility will be provided to you.

[01:45:57]female employee. Yes.

[01:46:03]Madam, >> there has to be a rule female.

[01:46:10]There is no facility PROVIDED. NO, NO FEMALE WILL join your organization. That is why you don't have any female.

[01:46:16]>> We have not denied that we will not give this only. It's not that you have to make provision like we have to make provision for persons with special ability disability provision we need interpreter we need so many things we will not wait for appointment of interpreter when he comes and then we will appoint that that to that my reply is that I'm trying to explain that policy is already there of the employee of Tata motor and whatever facility is there for the employee of Tata This same facility medical facility is given to the employee of bat veterans with being the principal employee and they have been granted from time to time exemption for the same medical hospital medical benefit that's all for the same so what I'm trying just just last submission is that what I'm trying to say I don't know I don't know whether I will succeed or not section one particular kindly have a look to section This is the establishment what I racial testing five >> section one subsection five >> to that they have not given any reply and uh as as per my information and my knowledge that has not been notified the appropriate State government may shall I read may in consultation with the corporation and where the appropriate government is a state government with the approval of the central government after giving one month notice of its intention of so doing by notification in the official gathered extend the provision of this act or any of them to other establishment of last of establishment in industrial commercial agriculture or otherwise. So till till this uh occasion no notification has come as per >> for every for every establishment separate notification is not required.

[01:48:24]It is already applicable. If if they want to extend to other establishments then they can issue a not >> they have not replied to this.

[01:48:31]>> We have replied par 18 of my counter >> they have not brought on record any notification.

[01:48:36]>> This is what we have exactly said I may permit to read. It is said that the petition carries on manufacturing at least period of power and hence is covered under the perview of employee status act and there's no such requirement of notification.

[01:48:55]That is the definition of active.

[01:48:59]>> That's sir. Lastly, I just want to say that I they have been granted from time to time being the principal employer and I'm also the employee of principal employer is Tata Motor. So I >> you say that they have been exempted from time to time. That is where are those exemption letters for the period involved in the space?

[01:49:24]I just want to see the exemption for the period involved in this sum of the exemption period >> something. I just want 145. No, this is 1450 >> my >> I just want 1415. I don't want the entire bunch.

[01:49:43]>> And this petitioner's case will different. He's a contractor not >> we'll see that. But they say that they have been regarding the medical facility. So whether that custo All of them have not been brought on record but some of them have been brought on record. That is case number 219 of 2015 >> period. I just want one period 2014.

[01:50:33]>> 1415.

[01:50:35]>> I'm not concerned with others.

[01:50:38]>> 145 of which it will be Tata Tata main hospital. Let me know not Tat their principal employee. Let me let me see that if that is also there or not.

[01:50:48]>> Okay, this is also in dispute. Which who is the principal employer? Is it Tata steel? Is it Tata works or is it Tata mean hospital? They they are very silent on this. My friend has >> param they are very silent on this paraphur the firm of the is a license contract on the position of contract so and so for the cooking service so to the indoor patients of telco hospital >> telco hospital so it is telco telco must be having the exemption yes >> for the 2014 145 motors has exemption ships from 20 >> 2015 January 2015 to December 2015 >> we are on 1415 >> 1415 also there >> where is that shown that I want 40.

[01:51:55]>> Yes. Yes.

[01:52:05]Kindly come to page.

[01:52:12]>> Mr. D.

[01:52:13]>> Yes.

[01:52:13]>> I have to find out some ways that I can read records of another case in the record of this. I was not my friend.

[01:52:22]>> Yeah, I just I'm absolutely clueless.

[01:52:25]How will you read one case into another?

[01:52:28]There's a limit to which I can read it.

[01:52:30]Who the principal employer that needs to be first and tell whether that principal employer because this is a case of Tata Motors Tata Steelc appearing on behalf of the petitioners 11 >> the the for the SIC and state are also present.

[01:53:02]The council for the petition has submitted that the improved order at NH 26 is relating to the period November 2014 to October 2015 and each of the grounds reject rejecting the application for exemption for contribution to VSIC.

[01:53:29]is incorrect.

[01:53:37]A reference has been made to paragraph 27 of the repetition where grounds have been raised to challenge each of the reasons.

[01:53:54]The learning council submits that the practitioner is a contractor.

[01:54:09]The council service that the petitioner is a page number >> partnership firm and is a licensed contractor for the purpose of cooking and serving diet etc to indoor patients of TCO hospital and nursing homes and to the employees of the hospital and for allied works at Jamshetpur.

[01:54:38]And the petitioner is not a factory.

[01:54:41]It may be an establishment.

[01:54:46]A reference has been made to the provision of section one within bracket five of the employee state insurance act 1948 to submit that noification has been issued in terms of that section to extend the provision of ASI act to the And therefore the entire action of the respondent ESIC is expressi without roots. Can I intervene?

[01:55:17]>> Yes. Is there stated from 1 month 2015 to 31 2015 exemption given to principal? Who is the principal employee?

[01:55:32]Where do you sit? The Tata motor is your principal.

[01:55:53]The new council has further submitted that The petitioner has been filing petition seeking exemption before the authority from time to time.

[01:56:18]And when the petition were seeking exemption were pending one petition was filed in WPC number 351 of 27. It was disposed of on 23 2007 stating that the petitioner's application was still pending before that and the matter was remitted to the secretary direct the department of labor employment and training government of Dhakan to consider the application for exemption postman and order of exempion. An order rejecting the application seeking exemption was passed by memo number 6 364 dated 313 2009 within back 15 which was challenged before this 14 WPC number 213 of 2009 which was disposed of by order dated 2411 2011 with backed NHS and the matter was remitted back to the authority for passing fresh order in accordance with law. She submits that it has been mentioned in the petition that no fresh order was passed. However, the petition seeking exemption for the period 2000 for the period involved in this case >> November 2014 >> November 2014 till >> October 2015 >> October 2015 has been rejected by the improved order.

[01:58:10]The learning council submits that the petitioner is enjoying the the employees under the petitioner are enjoying all the facilities which are available to the employees of Tata Motors.

[01:58:43]that is tech.

[01:58:48]The learner council has further submitted that the principal employer of the petitioner is limited and since the employees are enjoying all the facility therefore It cannot be said that um all the facilities and therefore the exemption granted in favor of Telco limited is also in in case of limited is also applicable to the present petitioner.

[01:59:42]She has submitted that this aspect of the matter if taken into consideration would show that the impute order is expressed perverse and cannot be sustained in the eyes of the learning council has referred to which paragraph that for this period they were exempted which paragraph was the repetition The law council for the petitioner upon a query of this phone has not been able to refer to any paragraph of this petition to show that even Telo limited was exempted for the period involved in the present case.

[02:00:44]The learning council appearing on behalf of the petitioner has further referred to an app dated 312 32 and 312 affidavit dated 31 2015 as contained in the 20 and has submitted that even the union has >> 21 in 20 is 117 which is the applicable option. from Sh Khan.

[02:01:36]>> Yes. And 21 is the letter.

[02:01:38]>> I'm just referring to 20 then I come to uh affidavit and has submitted that this affidavit would show that all the facilities are available which has which have been shown to be not available to the employees of the petitioner in the approved order. Thereafter she refers to an extra 22 which is a settlement arrived at between the manager of between the management of the petitioner and their workman engaged in teams located in Telco hospital >> before that is 21 >> 21 page number.

[02:02:24]Okay. Okay. Then the learner council then refers to the application filed by the telco workers union to the principal secretary department of labor training and employment wherein they had also filed an application to grant exemption to the employees. is under section 88 of the ESIC act for the period from 1st October 2013 to 31st October November 2014 which is a letter dated 29 2015. The learner council submits that the application filed by Telco workers union was rejected without giving any hearing. However, the telco workers union is neither a party before this court nor the order of rejection in the application filed by to workers union has been based on record the n2 agreement settlement between the barakers and their work workmen. Right.

[02:03:49]>> And the union >> she refers to an 22 which is a settlement arrive between the management of the petitioner and >> their workman >> their workman engaged >> in hospital >> in t in the canteen located in to hospital represented by telco workers Amen.

[02:04:37]And I submitted that the TE workers union having represented before the authority with respect to the employees of the petitioner seeking exemption.

[02:04:52]for the petitioner.

[02:04:56]The party should have been noticed and then the order could have been passed.

[02:05:06]This is a settlement dated.

[02:05:11]Any any clause in this settlement are you referring or is just a setlement on various points? any clause regarding medical facilities.

[02:05:22]>> No medical.

[02:05:24]>> However, during the course of argument for the petitioner could not point out any clause in the settlement relating to any kind of medical facilities which are the prime concern of the respondent ESC ESIC in the present case.

[02:05:42]That's all.

[02:05:46]The learning council appearing on behalf of ESIC has submitted that there is nothing on record and not even a statement that the petition that the employees of the petitioner are the employees of Tel Limited and therefore exemption if any granted to Telco limited has no bearing in this case. The learning council has then referred to the counter academic and has submitted that each of the grounds mentioned in paragraph 47 of the repetition has been specifically dealt with in the counter activ >> 28 to 35 and have been denied and such statement made in a repetition is neither based on any materials placed on record nor any such material placed before the authority. It is not the case of the petitioner that such materials were placed before the authority and the same has not been considered. The learning council has then referred to paragraph 8 of the counter academic to submit that the petitioner is governed by covered by factories act as they are they are losing power under such circumstances there is no need for issuance of a separate notification under section one five of the ESI act.

[02:07:01]He submits that the argument of the petitioner on that basis that the entire proceeding is without jurisdiction is not sustainable in >> uh one they addition that now they they are paying contribution. The learning council has also submitted that the petitioner is now paying contribution to the ESIC with respect to those persons who are covered under that.

[02:07:33]The learned council for the petitioner does not dispute this fact that as of now the petitioner is paying contribution to ASIC who are otherwise covered under that. with respect to those who are otherwise covered under that's all >> but just one judgment with regard to judicial >> those judgments will be there because you have cited those those judgments and objections that will be there >> because this has been implemented since 16 so now that after retirement the that benefit that will continue by a side and uh before that >> after retirement it will continue by ASI if they they give contribution some contribution is deducted by the employee and the employer so if that is deposited they can get some benefit by the ASI after retirement they have retired in the year 2003 >> so I don't know what >> so their objection that after retirement that for that I'm explaining and rest only I want to say that they have stated how >> will they get the benefit after retirement from ESIC >> for the period that the period after >> the period cannot be syndicated like this >> you have to give a contribution when they are in their in service and then by virtue of that contribution they get the benefit till death >> 9 years 8 to 9 years they have given and only one thing they have stated specifically that we have to travel 30 kilome with with our own cost and go to the hospital that's all this is all this is over case.

[02:09:14]>> I need to check >> is contractor. Is there any other case or it is only one case?

[02:09:19]>> There has to be one more case of it is not on the fourth 630 is right.

[02:09:34]>> This is the case but there's another case I don't know.

[02:09:42]I'm not sure about >> at sometimes they find WPC WP. I'm not sure about that. But there's a case of I'm sure about that.

[02:09:55]Yes.

[02:10:03]Your argument is over.

[02:10:09]When should I when should I post it?

[02:10:12]>> Friday not my only is Friday.

[02:10:20]Why did we have kept one?

[02:10:23]>> But as I understand your doctor wants us to address individually >> naturally because individual there could be overlapping but there are individual facts.

[02:10:34]>> Correct. I I have understood but I came with a different mind.

[02:10:38]>> Yes, we also heard it in the different mind.

[02:10:40]>> So therefore my preparation was complete. So what I propose is I'll make my own preparation.

[02:10:47]Okay.

[02:10:56]Thursday.

[02:11:12]This will help me and we can keep it as Monday already.

[02:11:20]Lordship accommodates all of us. Okay.

[02:11:23]And same one and one and two.

[02:11:31]We have only one and two one and two for all these charts one to four to four that will consume time that will complete if time permits I'll do the other we keep 1 2 13 and 20.

[02:12:05]>> 1 to 13 and 20 post the remaining cases on next Thursday at 2:15 first case. Yes sir. uh council for the party submit that each case may be required to be argued separately and therefore uh the Mr. AKA submits that he would advance his arguments for four cases. WPC 2354 of 2019, WPC 2794 of 2014 and WPC 385 of 2022, WPC 38 of 2022 which may consume the second half.

[02:12:56]You choose whatever you want.

[02:13:05]Not factual respect.

[02:13:10]I'll show it from the rules that what my learned friend says is incorrect.

[02:13:21]You see it has to be substantially same.

[02:13:23]Yeah. I'm not very much I've seen that is not a very ground that is not but whatever you have to submit. Yes, I'll show it from the rules also. What my London F wanted to show and attribute to us that is their rules. They will also have to refer otherwise I >> and also serial number seven right 219 of 219 of Mr. You see no no is a fact is a fact.

[02:14:16]>> The fact is that the juniors decide the seniors.

[02:14:20]>> So I am deciding.

[02:14:22]>> You are deciding.

[02:14:23]>> Yes Mr. C.

[02:14:27]This is all subject to him giving us a one for his acceptance once for our rejection not rejection for whatever >> it's just a matter of chance that's >> so we'll fix the next dates I have three companies to represent we'll do one company each on the next I don't have anything to say on this but Mr. Das I really congratulate you for this and I wish you all the best and we had always seen you as a senior only team of it is just we have declared it now